creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Oliver North
Oliver North
25 May 2012
Memorial Day 2012

WASHINGTON — As a crowd of high-school students offloaded from the tour bus for a visit to the Vietnam … Read More.

18 May 2012
Welcome Home, Finally

WASHINGTON — Forty-three years ago this week, the fabled 101st Airborne Division launched Operation … Read More.

11 May 2012
Institutional Arrogance

WASHINGTON — Last week, this column described a deadly suicide attack by the Haqqani network on a … Read More.

Strategic Capitulation

Share Comment

WASHINGTON — The U.S. military had better get ready to do a whole lot more with a whole lot less. That's the bottom line of the so-called "new strategic guidance" issued this week by President Barack Obama during a brief visit to the Pentagon. Flanked by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Obama proudly proclaimed to allies and adversaries alike that the United States is heading toward a much less expensive, far smaller and ultimately less capable military than we've had since before World War II.

Titled "Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense," the 16-page document is the result of a "fundamental review" ordered by the White House in April. It purports to provide a strategic framework for addressing present and future threats to the United States and the means of protecting the nation from them now that the "tide of war" in Iraq and Afghanistan is receding. It doesn't live up to the hype.

In a letter accompanying the review, the president claims it was "shaped by America's enduring national security interests." At the Pentagon briefing Jan. 5, he insisted, "The size and the structure of our military and defense budgets have to be driven by a strategy, not the other way around." He also issued a stunning rebuke to his predecessors: "We have to remember the lessons of history. We can't afford to repeat the mistakes that have been made in the past — after World War II, after Vietnam — when our military was left ill-prepared for the future."

We can count on seeing video of those words repeated ad nauseam in "re-elect" campaign commercials this summer. But his own "priorities" document makes clear that Obama plans to double down on the "mistakes of the past." He claims that it is now a "national security imperative" to reduce our federal deficit "through a lower level of defense spending." That's a strategy driven by dollars — not by the threats and risks we face.

For more than 70 years, the size, structure and capabilities of our military have been driven by retaining the capacity to fight a two-front war. That's how we won World War II, deterred Soviet aggression during the Cold War and eventually brought down the "Evil Empire." This archaic "peace through strength" strategy is not part of the new "Obama Doctrine."

According to POTUS and Secretary Panetta, the "Joint Force for the future" will be "smaller and leaner, but will be agile, flexible, ready and technologically advanced." They also claim that our austere military "will be prepared to confront and defeat aggression anywhere in the world." All this embraces the idea that we can fight our enemies at the times and places of our own choosing.

Such a strategy assumes that risks posed by a nuclear-armed Iran in the Persian Gulf, the possibility of Pyongyang's launching another surprise attack across the Korean demilitarized zone, Beijing's military and economic adventurism in the Pacific and a resurgence of radical Islam in the Middle East are sequential events — not simultaneous.

In his haste to claim credit for ending what he calls "a decade of war," Obama apparently has forgotten that we did not choose the times and places of the terror attacks on 9/11.

The O-Team's planning guidance states that we must "rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region." Yet it also contends that we can reduce our defense budget — by more than $1.1 trillion over the next decade; delay acquisition and fielding of advanced weapons systems, such as ballistic missile defense and the F-35 joint strike fighter; draw down U.S. force levels in Europe and the Middle East; dramatically reduce the size of the active-duty U.S. Army and Marine Corps; increase reliance on National Guard and Reserve forces; and reduce pay and benefits for an "all-volunteer military." How these competing objectives can be achieved is beyond comprehension to anyone familiar with our military.

Rep. Buck McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement that the new Obama Doctrine is a "lead from behind strategy for a left-behind America." His critique went downhill from there: "This strategy ensures American decline in exchange for more failed domestic programs. In order to justify massive cuts to our military, he has revoked the guarantee that America will support our allies, defend our interests, and defy our opponents."

All true. But McKeon's most telling rebuke was also a warning to the Obama administration: "The world has always had, and will always have a leader. As America steps back, someone else will step forward."

Oliver North is the host of "War Stories" on Fox News Channel, the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance, and the author of "American Heroes in Special Operations." To find out more about Oliver North and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM


Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment
Mr. North,
If a huge military is what you desire, why don't you propose that we pay for it? Should we really be depending on China to finance our military when China is the other realistic power ready to take our place as "that leader"? The Bush idiocy of starting wars and cutting taxes at the same time is no small part of the budget disaster. Are you serious? We will know so if you call for raising taxes to pay for your fantasy military, not borrowing the money from China.
.
And that other military matter remains unaddressed. Mr. North, this is now your 16th column since "don't ask, don't tell" ended and there still appears to be no crisis of retention or requirement in the military. Mr. North, will you ever have the courage and personal integrity to admit that your column predicting disaster in this matter was just political theater? Aren't you happy to report that the men and women serving in our military are more dedicated and professional than you, apparently, could imagine?
Comment: #1
Posted by: Mark
Thu Jan 5, 2012 9:12 PM
Oliver North is the expert on military matters. However, I think we should temper it with philosophy. We have the ability to be warrior philosohers rather than just warriors. I believe the Bible represents the thinking of the early civilizations. Much of it is story telling since the apostles could not just show up in a town, have a nice place to sleep for the night and some wine and mutton and then say, "you all are no good." It had to be in a story; they were the writers of their day. What theme can we discern? Corrupt people eventually rise to the top, and worse, eventually, only corrupt people are at the top. Revelation? Well, it clearly states that God favors the Muslims and Turkey, Iran, and Egypt will defeat the United States at the battle of Armeggedon. Enlisted people who earn $5k a month simply because all the movie acting and insider trading positions were taken might not actually be that brave when the Muslims come screaming out of their ghettoes saying we can't take it anymore. Our job is to postpone the end for as long as possible. Reagan pushed it back by at least twenty years. Bush Clinton feathering their nests and doing everything for their families (as the Mafia used to describe itself) brought the end closer by about seven years, which puts it at about 2013, which is what the Mayan calender is also predicting. Question. Can we get another Roosevelt, Nixon, or Reagan?
Comment: #2
Posted by: Mike Hayne
Mon Jan 9, 2012 10:15 AM
Mr.North continues the lie of trying to equate 9/11 with the Iraq war,a war of choice,nothing to do with 9/11.As the other comment points out the right wing promoters of war should stand up and call for the military to be paid for,with taxes.They do not because they are political cowards.They use the deficit to hammer Obama and Democrats,when the truth is most of it was created by Republicans.Americas red ink spending in Iraq and Afghanistan while neglecting our own is a disgrace.
Comment: #3
Posted by: WILLIAM KELLEY
Wed Jan 11, 2012 7:41 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Oliver North
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 26 May 2012
Oliver North
Oliver NorthUpdated 25 May 2012
Linda Chavez
Linda ChavezUpdated 25 May 2012

15 Feb 2008 The 2nd Amendment's Day in Court

18 Apr 2008 Citizen Carter's Ego Trip

23 Apr 2010 Atomic Ayatollahs